Mr. WILLIAMS. I take it they need some physical stamina. Senator CLARK. There is no apparent connection between arteriosclerosis and the slowing down of one's mental reactions until one is substantially older than 57, which I am now. Mr. WILLIAMS. We would like to have some more sheltered employment opportunities for people with physical limitations. The final reason why older people have a harder time getting a job is, of course, the fact that many employers do still have outmoded ideas about their employability. They tend to associate chronological age with the ability to produce. We need a continuing and expanded program of information and education directed to these employers. We think, too, that we need much more research so that we can have some objective criteria which will help us determine objectively when a person needs to retire rather than do it by chronological age. ANTIDISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION And, of course, the final thing we need, and I mentioned this last for a very good reason, is legislation which makes job discrimination on the basis of an upper age limit illegal. I say this last because although I think such legislation is important and useful, we run the danger of deluding ourselves that it can do the job if we put it first. It is only one kind of buttressing action that government can take to help older workers find jobs, but it must support all these other things which I mentioned previously. Thank you. Senator MCNAMARA. Thank you, Mr. Williams. Senator CLARK. Can I ask Mr. Williams just two questions? MODIFYING THE $1,200 "RETIREMENT TEST" Senator CLARK. Mr. Williams, in your statement you refer to the fact that a good many older workers are in the market only for parttime jobs, earning less than $1,200 a year. Would not that situation be improved if we were able to amend the Social Security Act so as to either raise the level from $1,200 to a substantially higher figure, or if that costs too much, to permit a worker of 65 or over to continue to work until he is, say, 72, with an increased social security payment when he finally quits, rather than forfeiting his social security if he earns more than $1,200 a year? Mr. WILLIAMS. I definitely agree with you, and I think that your bill on the subject should be passed. Senator CLARK. Mr. Chairman, this is the most cooperative witness. Mr. WILLIAMS. I really do think it is an ideal way to go about it and when I first read about it, I kicked myself for not thinking of it first. Senator CLARK. Well, I did not think of it by myself. Mr. WILLIAMS. Many of these people who want to work and should work feel they are losing something by working. It is almost as if they believe that they are cheating themselves if they work longer because they are losing that $1,200. Anything that will give them a good reason for continuing to earn over $1,200, such as your bill, would be very helpful. I think that it would indeed be a notable contribution to helping to solve the problem. Senator CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Williams. You advocate full employment here, and I think we are all in accord with you, but I wonder if you have done any thinking as to what full employment would mean in statistical terms in Pennsylvania. We have somewhere in the neighborhood of 375,000 unemployed at present. What would be your view as to the level of unemployment in Pennsylvania which you would consider full employment? Mr. WILLIAMS. I don't think I have an expert view on that subject, although anything other than the amount of unemployment that exists because people are transferring from jobs is too much unemployment. I think we ought to get it down below 50,000, if possible. Senator CLARK. In other words, full employment to you means frictional unemployment only. Mr. WILLIAMs. That's right. Senator CLARK. My problem has been to try to determine for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania just where that figure lies. I have not done it. I do not know whether, check me if I am right, in saying that, that there is still about 9 percent of our labor force unemployed in Pennsylvania even according to the latest figures. Mr. WILLIAMS. Just about, 8.9 percent. Senator CLARK. We would have to get to 2 or 3 percent in order to have the full employment that you seek. Mr. WILLIAMS. I would say definitely down under 3 percent. Senator CLARK. Unless we get the area redevelopment bill we will not make much progress, no matter how prosperous the rest of the country is because these pockets of persistent unemployment in my State, and I think also in Michigan, are not going to be helped without governmental assistance, without any resurgence of the economy. That is probably too strong. They will be helped some. But we must get some new industry into those areas. Mr. WILLIAMS. I agree with that completely. Senator MCNAMARA. I think Mr. Sargent has something he would like to say at this point and I am sure Mr. Odell will talk about what might be considered normal unemployment, so, gentlemen, do not hesitate if you want to, to get into the colloquy as well as the general questioning afterward. Feel free to enter in. Thank you again, Mr. Williams. The next person on our list is Mr. Louis Kuplan. Mr. Kuplan. STATEMENT OF LOUIS KUPLAN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON AGING OF CALIFORNIA; PRESIDENT, AMERICAN GERONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY Mr. KUPLAN. Thank you, Senator. May my entire statement be inserted in the record at this point? Senator MCNAMARA. Without objection, it will be incorporated in the record at this point. (Mr. Kuplan's prepared statement follows:) It is indeed heartening that this committee of the Senate of the United States is undertaking an analytical study of the problems of the aged and the aging. It is long overdue in view of the rapid pace at which these most complex problems are looming larger and larger on our horizon. I believe that the problems of aging can be likened to a time bomb now under us, which if detonated will have serious repercussions upon our social, political, and economic life. The trigger for the explosion will be the continued rejection of, and indifference to, the needs of the elderly. This thought is particularly pertinent in view of the difficulties faced by persons over 40 years of age, and even younger, in finding employment and in view of our widespread policy of arbitrary and automatic retirement at 65 years of age at a time when we face an almost immediate extension of the lifespan by 10 to 30 years of useful life. There is no gainsaying the fact that finding jobs is very difficult for workers between 40 and 65 years of age and well nigh impossible for persons over 65 unless they possess skills which happen to be in great demand at a given moment. There are consistent efforts made to wish away this problem by saying that there are enough jobs for those who want them, that older persons are unstable and are job “hoppers,” and that older workers are unsatisfactory from the points of view of productivity, health, absenteeism, safety, completion of assignments, willingness to work hard, interest in job, stability, working with others, learning ability, and quality of work. None of these criticisms can be substantiated. All too often a major issue is made on the basis of a few examples. The facts in the matter are that the older worker is equal to, or even better than, younger workers. This has been established by studies made by such different groups as governmental agencies, labor unions, the University of Illinois, Iowa State University, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Merchants and Manufacturers Association of Los Angeles, and the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California. Yet we persist in retiring most workers at 65 solely on a chronological basis. Why? Why do we persist in using 65 as the dividing line between the younger worker and the older worker? What is the rationale of using the age of 65, an age used by Bismarck in determining the age of retirement in Germany's first social insurance program in the 1880's? Bismarck had good reasons for using that figure, for relatively few people attained the age of 65 then-the average life expectancy at that time was about 40 years. But what reasons can we offer in view of the fact that today 65 is merely the latter part of middle age? These questions are within an area which this committee could study profitably. PRESSURE TOWARD LOWER RETIREMENT AGE On the basis of my own studies and observations I would say that it is becoming more and more obvious that the retirement age will be lowered rather than raised. The pages of the Congressional Record indicate that the Members of the Congress are already being subjected to great pressure to reduce the retirement age. The recent picketing of older steelworkers by younger steelworkers, asking the former to retire so that the latter could have jobs in order to support their families, is another indication of this same trend. One of my most embarrassing public moments occurred at a public meeting called to discuss job opportunities for older people. A youngish woman, accompanied by two very young children, in the audience arose and said, "Mister, you are talking about jobs for older people-how can you help my husband who is 40 find a job so that these babies can be fed?" What could I say to her except to refer her, somewhat lamely, to a public employment office which at the time gave no special services to persons over 40 seeking jobs. A further point in mind is the fact that quite recently one of this country's major oil companies "accelerated" its retirement program to 55 for all of its employees. This reluctance to utilize the skills of older workers is not limited to physical labor. About a year ago the National Office Managers' Association made a study of the hiring policies of firms using large numbers of clerical workers. The results: 5 percent of the firms would hire no one over 28 years of age; some 50 percent of them would not hire anyone over 40 years of age. The same pattern is found in mass production plants which are highly automated. WILL AUTOMATION REQUIRE FEWER WORKERS? This committee would be making a major contribution in its search for the facts if it would raise the question: Have we reached a point where we have no need for so many people in our labor force because of technological developments-automation? I earnestly believe that we must face this question nonestly. If automation, or technological progress if you will, is the underlying cause, then we must accept the fact that conditions may get worse before they improve. For the accelerated program of automation is bound to bring the shorter workweek, the shorter workday, as well as a shorter working life span based upon earlier retirement of the older worker and delayed entry into the labor market for our youth. Perhaps no greater service could be performed by this committee than if, through its deliberations, it can help eliminate the apparent reluctance on the part of leaders in government, business, and labor to recognize the problems posed by automation. In this respect I am inclined to agree with Harvard economist John K. Galbraith, when he says that "*** the greatest prospect we face-indeed what must now be counted one of the central economic goals of our society-is to eliminate toil as a required economic institution. This is not a utopian vision. We are already well on the way. Only an extraordinarily elaborate exercise in social camouflage has kept us from seeing what has been happening." There are some who say that the older worker displaced by technological developments will be retained for other work. To date there has been very little evidence that this is being done. This could be another fertile field of study for the committee perhaps with recommendations for congressional action. Still another school of thought maintains that the displaced older workers can be absorbed by service industries. Perhaps so. But already our labor pattern has changed. Last year, for the first time in our history, more people were employed in the so-called service industries than in the production of consumers' goods. It might be to the point if this committee questioned this facile solution and asked, "Can all displaced workers be absorbed in the service industries?" CRUCIAL POINTS ABOUT AGING Before going on to discuss what I consider the crux of the problem it might be helpful if I reviewed briefly some of the salient points about aging and the aged in our society. Demographically we have been made aware of the great increase in the number of older people in our population. There are now some 15 million people over 65 years of age in the United States. It has been estimated that there is a net increase each year of about 400,000 in this age group. Moderate estimates indicate that by 1970 there will be not less than 20 million people over 65 in this country. And by that time about one-third of our total population will be over 45 years of age. This latter estimate has considerable significance in view of the fact that superannuation, employmentwise, begins at 40 or 45. However, the foregoing estimates may be revised dramatically by the research now under way in the fields of the biological sciences and clinical medicine. Many researchers seem to be becoming more certain that the next 10 years may see a breakthrough in the cure or control of cancer and the cardiovascular diseases, the major killers of older people. If this does happen, the older population will increase explosively. At the annual convention of the American Medical Association in Atlantic City last week Dr. Irving S. Wright, of the New York Hospital, Cornell University Medical Center in New York, said that an agent which would prevent the narrowing of the arteries (atherosclerosis) would greatly increase the already skyrocketing elderly population. He warned that insuring a productive, meaningful, and happy life for elderly people whose lives have been prolonged by modern science may be more difficult than finding a cure for heart disease. MAN'S LONGEVITY TO AT LEAST 100 YEARS POSSIBLE While no one knows what causes aging, researchers in the biological sciences are studying the human body in an effort to unlock this secret. Although they have not been successful in this as yet, their efforts in all probabilities will result in dramatic extension of the human life span. Between 1900 and today the average life expectancy has been increased from 47 years to a little more than 70 years. This has been achieved almost solely through a sharp reduction in infant and child mortality, thus making it possible for more people to live on into old age. Many researchers have expressed the belief that man can live 100 years. Others are reporting that all of us should be living 125 to 150 years. As part of this trend a new timetable of aging came out of the Fourth International Congress of Gerontology held in Italy in 1957. There was remarkable unanimity of opinion coming from researchers in different countries. In essence, they agreed that 20 to 45 was the period of youth, 45 to 78 was the period of presenesence, 78 to 94 was the period in which old age began, 94 and over was the true period of senescence. In contrast to the foregoing, Dr. Edward L. Bortz has developed a "life table" as follows: 1 to 30: Basic growth; development, education. 30 to 60: Establishment of a family and entrance upon one's first major life work. 60 to 90: Second career (harvest years); community, civic, and religious activity (and I would add self-development and self-realization). 90 and over: The epilog of life. With all this increased longevity we are not being merely handed extra years in which to vegetate. The researchers are concerned with adding only useful years to our life span. They have come to agreement that senility, in most cases, is not a normal part of the aging process. It would seem that only a small porttion of cases of senility is based upon physiological factors. In most cases, senility is due to lack of motivation-to surrender to the current stereotyped thinking that the later years can bring only unhappiness and uselessness. Increasing knowledge about health and nutrition in the later years is making life easier for the elderly. Already, major surgery can be performed successfully on people in their seventies and eighties. No longer need an ailment, previously considered inoperable because of age, become the focal point for painful and disabling long-term illness. Even though medicine has not conquered the major long-term illnesses, it has learned how to help the older person live with them to a high degree of normalcy. NEW MEDICAL APPROACHES But even more encouraging is the growing emphasis on the use of medical knowledge to prevent normal illness from developing into long-term illness by prompt care when the individual first develops symptoms of illness. The use of multiphasic screening techniques are being used to reveal unsuspected ailments in older people as well as possible focal points of developing pathological conditions. And it is most hopeful that the large store of knowledge of physical medicine is proving that it is possible to rehabilitate older persons with chronic ailments to the point where an ever-increasing number of them can return to independent living rather than remaining bed patients in public general hospitals as custodial patients, without therapy, without hope and at tremendous cost to the taxpayer. These same developments can be successfully applied to the so-called senile patients who are crowding our State mental institutions. Although many still regard these people as hopeless despite the lack of proof that they are psychopathic, experiments have demonstrated that a substantial number of them can be remotivated to the extent that they can be returned home. Such experiments, carried on in California's mental hospitals, by Maurice Linden in Pennsylvania, and others, have shown that at least 30 percent of these senile patients can be discharged from the hospitals by restoring their interest in life and in other people. With all this progress there still remains much reeducation to be done with the general public and many professional groups, including the medical profession. It could be said with good cause that physicians do great harm to the morale of aging individuals when they dismiss many ailments as being due to one's growing older, without giving the individual an opportunity to understand just what is happening to him. Physicians, of all people, should not subscribe to the popular fallacy that all old people are ill people. Instead, they must take a constructive approach which will encourage people to overcome their ailments. In other words, the physician should use the knowledge already available to him to make sure that the added years of life will be useful ones and not merely a protraction of a vegetable type of existence. Such a positive constructive approach is the best possible type of good mental hygiene for the aging person. |